Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 10-11; claim 6, line 13 recite “a surface contained entirely within the channel” renders the claim indefinite because in the instant application the surface defines the channel, so that it is unclear how the surface is within or inside the channel when the surface defines the channel. For purposes of examination, a surface contained entirely within the channel means the surface defines the channel.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulds (US 20190242264 as referenced in OA dated 11/5/2025) in view of LeBlanc et al (US 20130341875)
PNG
media_image1.png
388
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
357
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 and 8 of Goulds
PNG
media_image3.png
328
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 8 of Goulds showing modification of LeBlanc
PNG
media_image4.png
438
758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of LeBlanc
Regarding claim 1, Goulds discloses an exhaust case (The casing of Figure 6; 104) for a turbomachine (Figure 6; 100),
the exhaust case extending along a longitudinal axis (Figure 6; 108) and, comprising:
an annular shroud (Figure 8; 106) having a wall (The wall forming the annular shroud) extending axially along the longitudinal axis from a first flange (Annotated Figure 8; labeled first flange which is the substantially vertical dashed line of radially inner wall portion), a plurality of openings (Figure 8; 116) being provided through the wall; and
a plurality of mouths (The mouths described hereafter) each forming a channel (The channel in Figure 8; 122 for 119) extending between a respective inlet (The inlet of the channel at Figure 8; 123) and one of the openings (Figure 8; 116) such that a secondary airflow (Figure 8; 119) through each mouth can feed gases into a main airflow (Figure 8; 129) through the annular shroud,
each mouth having:
a docking flange (Figure 8; 123 for 122) at the inlet,
the docking flange having a radially inner edge (Annotated Figure 8; labeled radially inner edge) extending between, and in contact with, the first flange of the annular shroud and a radially inner wall portion (Annotated Figure 8; labeled radially inner wall portion) consisting of a surface (The top slanted dashed line of Annotated Figure 8; labeled radially inner wall portion) contained entirely within the channel,
said radially inner wall portion being formed by a thickened section (Annotated Figure 8; labeled thickened section) made on the wall of the shroud.
Goulds does not disclose said radially inner edge being formed by a thickened section made on the wall of the shroud.
However, LeBlanc teaches a docking flange (Annotated Figure 2; labeled docking flange denoted by a dashed line) having a radially inner edge (Annotated Figure 2; labeled radially inner edge denoted by a solid line. This is a portion of the dashed line of the docking flange that is overlapped by the solid line of the radially inner edge. This edge is radially inner with respect to the outmost portion of Figure 2; 175) extending between, and in contact with, a first flange (Annotated Figure 2; labeled first flange) and a radially inner wall portion (The wall portion having by Annotated Figure 2; labeled surface. This portion is radially inner with respect to the outmost portion of Figure 2; 175) consisting of a surface (Annotated Figure 2; labeled surface) contained entirely within a channel (Figure 2; 95),
said radially inner edge and said radially inner wall portion being formed by a thickened section (The radially inner wall portion is a thickened section that forms the radially inner edge and wall portion) made on a wall (The wall made by Figure 2; 80) of a shroud (Figure 3A; 80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Goulds wherein said radially inner edge being formed by a thickened section made on the wall of the shroud as taught by and suggested by LeBlanc because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case LeBlanc’s use of a single thickened section forming two flanges according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Goulds’s exhaust case, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case mounting two components to the single thickened section, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the radially inner edge and radially inner wall portion being formed by the thickened section).
Regarding claim 7, Goulds in view of LeBlanc teaches the exhaust case according to claim 1.
Goulds further discloses pressure regulation unit (The pressure regulation unit described below) for the turbomachine, the pressure regulation unit comprising:
the exhaust case,
a bleed module (Figure 6; 135 and Annotated Figure 6; labeled pipe) configured to bleed a pressurised air flow (The pressurized air flow from the compressor) upstream of the exhaust case, the bleed module comprising an inlet pipe (Annotated Figure 6; labeled pipe) and a valve (Figure 6; 135) configured to shut off the inlet pipe (Functional Language, Paragraph 0073, the bleed valves can vent the bleed air, so that it can also not vent the bleed air. Also, Paragraph 0004), and
a distribution module (Figure 6; 137, 136) configured to distribute a bleed flow (The bleed flow from the compressor) to the mouths of the exhaust case,
the distribution module comprising:
a distribution pipe (Figure 6; 137) into which the inlet pipe opens, and
a plurality of injection pipes (Figure 6; 136) each connected to the distribution pipe and respectively to one of the mouths.
Regarding claim 8, Goulds in view of LeBlanc teaches the turbomachine comprising the exhaust case according to claim 1.
Goulds further discloses the turbomachine comprising the exhaust case.
Regarding claim 9, Goulds in view of LeBlanc teaches the turbomachine according to claim 8.
Goulds further discloses an aircraft (Intended use, The aircraft for the turbomachine. Paragraph 0003, 0032, 0062 states a propulsive thrust, so that the turbomachine is used in an aircraft) comprising the turbomachine.
Regarding claim 16, Goulds in view of LeBlanc teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds further discloses wherein the wall of the annular shroud is extending axially along the longitudinal axis from the first flange to a second flange (Annotated Figure 8; labeled second flange) that is downstream from the first flange, and
wherein the plurality of openings are provided through the wall in between the first flange and the second flange along the longitudinal axis (The openings are between the first and second flange).
Regarding claim 17, Goulds in view of LeBlanc teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds further discloses wherein the thickened section of the annular shroud integrally forms the radially inner wall portion (The thickened section integrally forms the radially inner wall portion), the thickened section being between the first flange and the plurality of openings along the longitudinal axis (The thickened section is between the first flange and the openings).
Regarding claim 18, Goulds in view of LeBlanc teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds further discloses wherein the radially inner edge section is entirely between the radially inner wall portion and the first flange along the longitudinal axis (Figure 8; labeled radially inner edge is entirely between the radially inner wall portion and the first flange along the longitudinal axis. As a note, LeBlanc also teaches wherein the radially inner edge section is entirely between the radially inner wall portion and the first flange along a longitudinal axis (The central longitudinal axis of Figure 1; 10 or LeBlanc. Annotated Figure 2; labeled radially inner edge of LeBlanc is entirely between the radially inner wall portion and the first flange along the longitudinal axis) for the same motivation as claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Goulds in view of LeBlanc teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds further discloses wherein the channel is delimited by the radially inner wall portion and a radially outer wall portion (Annotated Figure 8; labeled radially outer wall portion) that is opposite to the radially inner wall portion, and wherein the plurality of openings are downstream from the inlet along the longitudinal axis (The openings are downstream from the inlet along the longitudinal axis).
Claim(s) 2, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulds in view of LeBlanc as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martensson (US 20060277919 as referenced in OA dated 10/11/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Goulds in view of LeBlanc teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds in view of LeBlanc does not teach wherein at least one of the mouths further has a plurality of fins in the channel.
However, Martensson teaches a case (Figure 12; 41) for a turbomachine (The gas turbine engine of Paragraph 0002) comprising:
at least one mouth (Figure 12; 40) having a plurality of fins (Figure 12; 47) in a channel (The channel where Figure 12; 47are located).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Goulds in view of LeBlanc wherein at least one of the mouths further has a plurality of fins in the channel as taught by and suggested by Martensson in order to guide the bleed gas flow (Paragraph 0039, The modification adds fins to the mouths).
Regarding claim 12, Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson teaches the exhaust case according to claim 2.
Goulds further discloses a pressure regulation unit (The pressure regulation unit described below) for the turbomachine, the pressure regulation unit comprising:
the exhaust case,
a bleed module (Figure 6; 135 and Annotated Figure 6; labeled pipe) configured to bleed a pressurised air flow (The pressurized air flow from the compressor) upstream of the exhaust case, the bleed module comprising an inlet pipe (Annotated Figure 6; labeled pipe) and a valve (Figure 6; 135) configured to shut off the inlet pipe (Functional Language, Paragraph 0073, the bleed valves can vent the bleed air, so that it can also not vent the bleed air. Also, Paragraph 0004), and
a distribution module (Figure 6; 137, 136) configured to distribute a bleed flow (The bleed flow from the compressor) to the mouths of the exhaust case,
the distribution module comprising:
a distribution pipe (Figure 6; 137) into which the inlet pipe opens, and
a plurality of injection pipes (Figure 6; 136) each connected to the distribution pipe and respectively to one of the mouths.
Regarding claim 13, Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson teaches the exhaust case according to claim 2.
Goulds further discloses the turbomachine comprising the exhaust case.
Regarding claim 14, Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds further discloses wherein said mouth comprises a mouth wall (The wall defining Figure 8; 122) defining a radially outer wall portion (Annotated Figure 8; labeled radially outer wall portion), and
wherein said radially outer wall portion and said radially inner wall portion define said channel through which air flows.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulds in view of LeBlanc as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (US 20100303610 as referenced in OA dated 1/16/2025)
PNG
media_image5.png
401
586
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Wang
Regarding claim 3, Goulds in view of LeBlanc teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds in view of LeBlanc does not teach wherein the thickened section has at least one cavity.
However, Wang teaches an exhaust case (Figure 1; 10, Paragraph 0012. The turbine section of a gas turbine engine is an exhaust for at least the combustor);
wherein a thickened section (Annotated Figure 1; labeled thickened section) has at least one cavity (Annotated Figure 1; labeled cavity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Goulds in view of LeBlanc wherein the thickened section has at least one cavity as taught by and suggested by Wang because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Wang’s attachment means according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Gould’s exhaust case, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case fastening components together, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the attachment means of Wang to connect Annotated Figure 8; labeled flange and first flange of Goulds).
Regarding claim 4, Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Wang teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds further discloses a flange (Annotated Figure 8; labeled flange) of a low-pressure turbine case (Annotated Figure 8; labeled low-pressure turbine case)
Goulds in view of LeBlanc does not teach wherein the first flange of the exhaust case is formed with the thickened section and has holes each shaped for a passage of a rod of an assembly screw between the first flange and a flange of a low-pressure turbine case, and at least one hole opening into the at least one cavity which is shaped to receive an end of the rod of the assembly screw.
However, Wang teaches wherein a first flange (Annotated Figure 1; labeled first flange) of the exhaust case is formed with the thickened section and has holes (The hole in Annotated Figure 1; labeled first flange for the assembly screw that is upstream of the dashed dotted line) each shaped for a passage of a rod of an assembly screw (Functional Language, the holes are shaped for the passage of Annotated Figure 8; labeled rode of the assembly screw) between the first flange and a flange (Annotated Figure 8; labeled flange), and at least one hole opening into the at least one cavity which is shaped to receive an end (Functional Language, the cavity is shaped to receive Annotated Figure 8; labeled end) of the rod of the assembly screw.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Goulds in view of LeBlanc wherein the first flange of the exhaust case is formed with the thickened section and has holes each shaped for a passage of a rod of an assembly screw between the first flange and a flange (In the context of Goulds, the flange of Wang is the flange of the low-pressure turbine case of Goulds), and at least one hole opening into the at least one cavity which is shaped to receive an end of the rod of the assembly screw as taught by and suggested by Wang because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Wang’s attachment means according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Goulds in view of LeBlanc’s exhaust case, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case fastening components together, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (This is the same modification as claim 3).
Regarding claim 15, Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Wang teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds in view of LeBlanc does not teach wherein the cavity includes a gap separating the end of the rod of the assembly screw and the thickened section.
However, Wang teaches wherein the cavity includes a gap (The gap between Annotated Figure 1; labeled end and Annotated Figure 1; labeled thickened section) separating the end of the rod of the assembly screw and the thickened section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Goulds in view of LeBlanc wherein the cavity includes a gap separating the end of the rod of the assembly screw and the thickened section as taught by and suggested by Wang because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Wang’s attachment means according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Goulds in view of LeBlanc’s exhaust case, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case fastening components together, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (This is the same modification as claim 3).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulds in view of LeBlanc as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roach et al (US 20160153287 as referenced in OA dated 10/11/2023)
Regarding claim 5, Goulds in view of LeBlanc teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds in view of LeBlanc does not teach wherein the thickened section is formed with a honeycomb structure.
However, Roach teaches wherein an exhaust case is formed with a honeycomb structure (Paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Goulds in view of LeBlanc wherein the thickened section is formed with a honeycomb structure as taught by and suggested by Roach in order to attenuate sound (Paragraph 0045. The modification has the exhaust case, which includes the mouth and thickened section in Goulds, formed with a honeycomb structure).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Butcher et al (US 20200109668 as referenced in OA dated 10/11/2023)
Regarding claim 6, Goulds discloses a method for manufacturing an exhaust case (The casing of Figure 6; 104),
the method comprising:
manufacturing the exhaust case extending along a longitudinal axis (Figure 6; 108), the exhaust case comprising:
an annular shroud (Figure 8; 106) having a wall (The wall forming the annular shroud) extending axially along the longitudinal axis from a first flange (Annotated Figure 8; labeled first flange which is the substantially, a plurality of openings (Figure 8; 116) being provided through the wall; and
a plurality of mouths (The mouths described hereafter) each forming a channel (The channel in Figure 8; 122 for 119) extending between a respective inlet (The inlet of the channel at Figure 8; 123) and one of the openings (Figure 8; 116) such that a secondary airflow (Figure 8; 119) through each mouth can feed gases into a main airflow (Figure 8; 129) through the annular shroud,
each mouth having:
a flange (Figure 8; 123 for 122) flange at the inlet having a radially inner edge (Annotated Figure 8; labeled radially inner edge) extending between (The radially inner edge is between the topmost portion of Annotated Figure 8; labeled flange and the topmost portion of radially inner wall portion), and in contact with, the first flange of the annular shroud and a radially inner wall portion (Annotated Figure 8; labeled radially inner wall portion) consisting of a surface (The top slanted dashed line of Annotated Figure 8; labeled radially inner wall portion) contained entirely within the channel, said radially inner wall portion being formed by a thickened section (Annotated Figure 8; labeled thickened section) made on the wall of the shroud.
Goulds does not disclose wherein said radially inner edge being formed by a thickened section made on the wall of the shroud, and wherein the mouths are produced by an additive manufacturing method.
However, LeBlanc teaches a docking flange (Annotated Figure 2; labeled docking flange denoted by a dashed line) having a radially inner edge (Annotated Figure 2; labeled radially inner edge denoted by a solid line. This is a portion of the dashed line of the docking flange that is overlapped by the solid line of the radially inner edge. This edge is radially inner with respect to the outmost portion of Figure 2; 175) extending between, and in contact with, a first flange (Annotated Figure 2; labeled first flange) and a radially inner wall portion (The wall portion having by Annotated Figure 2; labeled surface. This portion is radially inner with respect to the outmost portion of Figure 2; 175) consisting of a surface (Annotated Figure 2; labeled surface) contained entirely within a channel (Figure 2; 95),
said radially inner edge and said radially inner wall portion being formed by a thickened section (The radially inner wall portion is a thickened section that forms the radially inner edge and wall portion) made on a wall (The wall made by Figure 2; 80) of a shroud (Figure 3A; 80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Goulds wherein said radially inner edge being formed by a thickened section made on the wall of the shroud as taught by and suggested by LeBlanc because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case LeBlanc’s use of a single thickened section forming two flanges according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Goulds’s exhaust case, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case mounting two components to the single thickened section, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the radially inner edge and radially inner wall portion being formed by the thickened section).
Goulds in view of LeBlanc does not teach wherein the mouths are produced by an additive manufacturing method.
However, Butcher teaches wherein an exhaust case (Figure 2; 22) of a turbomachine (Figure 2; 10) is produced by an additive manufacturing method (Paragraph 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Goulds in view of LeBlanc wherein the mouths are produced by an additive manufacturing method as taught by and suggested by Butcher in order to reduce time to delivery (Paragraph 0050, The modification makes the exhaust casing, which includes the mouth, by additive manufacturing).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 10, Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson does not teach wherein the thickened section has at least one cavity.
However, Wang teaches an exhaust case (Figure 1; 10, Paragraph 0012. The turbine section of a gas turbine engine is an exhaust for at least the combustor);
wherein a thickened section (Annotated Figure 1; labeled thickened section) has at least one cavity (Annotated Figure 1; labeled cavity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson wherein the thickened section has at least one cavity as taught by and suggested by Wang because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Wang’s attachment means according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Goulds in view of Martensson’s exhaust case, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case fastening components together, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the attachment means of Wang to connect Annotated Figure 8; labeled flange and first flange of Goulds).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Roach.
Regarding claim 11, Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson teaches the invention as claimed.
Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson does not teach wherein the thickened section is formed with a honeycomb structure.
However, Roach teaches wherein an exhaust case is formed with a honeycomb structure (Paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Goulds in view of LeBlanc and Martensson wherein the thickened section is formed with a honeycomb structure as taught by and suggested by Roach in order to attenuate sound (Paragraph 0045. The modification has the exhaust case, which includes the mouth and thickened section in Scott, formed with a honeycomb structure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LeBlanc et al (US 20130340555) shows in Figure 2 a thickened section forming a radially inner edge and wall portion
LeBlanc et al (US 20130343883) shows in Figure 2 a thickened section forming a radially inner edge and wall portion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights